Preprocessor-based source code instrumentation

ABSTRACT

A preprocessor-based instrumentation technique wherein source code is provided to a compiler that exposes data structures such as symbols, types, expressions, etc. during the construction of the syntax tree in order to analyze where possible defects might make it desirable to instrument the code. Once a possible defect is detected in a segment of code, information is stored in a PI file detailing what line or lines of code to add, remove, or alter so that the code is instrumented to monitor the code segments at runtime. The PI file and source code are then provided to a preprocessor that uses the information in the PI file to insert instrumentation into the source code prior to the construction of a syntax tree. The now instrumented source code is used to build an instrumented syntax tree, which is then compiled so as to produce executable object code.

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The following invention relates to defect analysis in software, and more particularly, to using preprocessor-based source code instrumentation in order to detect defects in software.

BACKGROUND

[0002] When developing software, it is often advantageous for purposes of defect analysis or optimization to instrument the software. Instrumentation of software refers to inserting additional instructions into the software so that when the software is executed, information regarding the software is recorded for subsequent review by the developer. The information varies widely based upon the purpose for instrumenting the software, but can include whether variables were initialized properly, what values they were assigned, how many times a code segment was used, recognizable patterns of code segment usage, memory usage, data access, etc.

[0003] When instrumenting software, a developer must choose a point within the compilation process to analyze the software, and also a point within the compilation process to insert the additional instructions. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,535,329 to Hastings discloses a method of instrumenting software after object code has been created by the compiler. Executable object code is analyzed for instrumentation points and additional instructions and data designed to instrument the software are inserted in between pre-existing instructions and data. Once the instrumentation instructions are inserted, an offset check is performed such that offsets that may be incorrect due to the new locations of the pre-existing code are corrected to insure proper execution of the software.

[0004] U.S. Pat. No. 6,314,558 to Angel at al. discloses a method of instrumenting software during the intermediate representation (IR) stage of compilation. Once source code has undergone lexical and syntax analysis, the resulting parse tree is transformed into an intermediate representation. The intermediate representation of the code is used to construct an IR tree using tree construction software. This IR tree is analyzed in order to determine instrumentation points. Instrumentation data in IR format is then injected into the IR tree to form an instrumented IR tree. The instrumented IR tree is then deconstructed to form an instrumented IR element, which is then compiled to form instrumented object code.

[0005] Methods such as those described in Hastings and Angel et al. suffer from a number of defects. First, analysis of intermediate representation or object code is less accurate in detecting possible defects, and in determining how to properly instrument code segments containing defects, because much of the context of the original source code has been lost in the transformation from source code to the intermediate representation, and even more context is lost from the intermediate representation to object code. Second, segments of source code that could be instrumented with only a few instrumentation instructions often translate into many times more instructions and memory accesses at the intermediate representation or object code level, causing additional or unneeded instrumentation instructions to be added. Lastly, during the transformation from the parse tree to the intermediate representation, modifications are made by the compiler based on control flow analysis and for purposes such as handling exceptions and destructors. Therefore, it is advantageous to analyze the code for instrumentation points prior to these modifications.

SUMMARY

[0006] The preprocessor-based instrumentation technique described herein provides a method for instrumenting software that overcomes the shortcomings of prior methods. Source code is provided to a compiler that exposes data structures such as symbols, types, expressions, etc. during the construction of the syntax tree in order to analyze where it would be desirable to instrument the code. Information from this analysis is stored in a “PI file.” The PI file and source code are then provided to a preprocessor that uses the information in the PI file to insert instrumentation into the source code prior to the construction of a syntax tree. Therefore, the code is analyzed prior to any “lowering” of the code during the compilation process and instrumented at the source code level during preprocessing.

[0007] The preprocessor-based instrumentation technique described herein provides a method of analyzing code at the syntax tree level. Any number of methods of analysis can be used such as data flow analysis, pointer analysis, cross-function analysis, etc. in order to decide whether certain types of defects may be present. The criteria used to detect segments of code to be instrumented depends on the type of defect sought. These defects may be memory access violations, uninitialized variable usage, null dereferences, incorrect API usage, memory leaks, etc. Once a possible defect is detected in a segment of code, information is stored in a PI file detailing what line or lines of code to add, remove, or alter so that the code is instrumented to monitor the code segments at runtime.

[0008] The preprocessor-based instrumentation technique described herein also provides a method of instrumenting code using a preprocessor to implement changes in the source code during compilation. The preprocessor takes as input the source code and a PI file. The PI file contains directives indicating which segments of code were identified as possible causes of runtime defects, and how they should be instrumented. Based on this information, the preprocessor adds, deletes, or modifies the source code in order to complete the instrumentation. The now instrumented source code is used to build an instrumented syntax tree, which is then compiled so as to produce executable object code.

[0009] These and other aspects will become apparent from the following detailed description, which makes references to the accompanying drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0010]FIG. 1 is a flowchart of a generic compilation process.

[0011]FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating one embodiment of an instrumentation analysis stage.

[0012]FIG. 3 shows a diagram of one embodiment of a system for implementing the instrumentation analysis stage.

[0013]FIG. 4 shows a diagram of another embodiment of a system implementing an instrumentation analysis stage.

[0014]FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of the instrumentation injection stage.

[0015]FIG. 6 is a diagram of an embodiment of a system of an instrumentation injection stage.

[0016]FIG. 7 is a diagram of another embodiment of a system for implementing the instrumentation injection stage.

[0017]FIG. 8 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a computer system that serves as an operating environment for preprocessor-based instrumentation of software.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0018] The preprocessor-based instrumentation technique described herein encompasses methods, systems, and software development tools or utilities that perform improved instrumentation of software. The technique can be broken down into two stages: an instrumentation analysis stage and an instrumentation injection stage. The instrumentation analysis stage determines which segments of code should be instrumented to detect runtime errors, and what changes should be made to those segments of code in order to instrument them. The instrumentation injection stage takes the information from the instrumentation analysis stage and instruments the code accordingly.

[0019] Instrumentation of software generally pertains to identifying a property the developer wants to examine or monitor during execution and defining program instructions that will record information at runtime necessary to examine or monitor the property. Locations are then identified in the software where the program instructions can to be inserted and the software is modified by adding the instructions in the appropriate locations. The benefit of the process is that subsequent execution of the software will record information necessary to examine or monitor the desired property.

[0020] A brief overview of the compilation process is beneficial to understanding the various methods of the invention. FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a generic compilation process. The compilation process begins with source code written by the programmer in a high-level programming language (e.g. C/C++, Pascal, Fortran, etc.). The source code is provided to a preprocessor in act 100 where usually a symbol within the high-level programming language directs the preprocessor to include files, perform conditional compilation, or perform macro expansion. The resulting code then undergoes lexical analysis in act 102 to parse code into a stream of tokens. Syntax analysis is then performed in act 104 by the compiler so as to assemble a syntax tree based on the overall structure and flow of the program. Next, the syntax tree is semantically analyzed in act 106 to produce an intermediate representation. The intermediate representation is a lowered language wherein much of the context of the source code has been lost but allows the software to be more easily optimized. If optimization is desired, the intermediate representation will be optimized in act 108, and finally compiled into executable object code in act 110.

Instrumentation Analysis Stage

[0021] The instrumentation analysis stage is responsible for determining which segments of the code to instrument and what changes should be made to those segments in order to instrument the code properly. FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating one embodiment of the instrumentation analysis stage. Source code is provided to a compiler that has been modified to expose internal data structures such as types, expressions, symbols, etc in act 200. A preprocessor within the compiler performs any tasks specified by the source code in act 202. Act 202 also includes lexically analyzing the source code to break it down into a token stream, and syntactically analyzing the token stream to construct a syntax tree. At act 204, an instrumentation analysis tool examines the syntax tree to determine what segments of code possibly contain errors that could cause runtime defects once the code is executed. Once a segment of code has been identified as a possible cause of defects at runtime, the instrumentation analysis tool determines what modifications should be made to properly instrument the code segment and records them in a PI file in act 206. The modifications are implemented so that useful information regarding the section of code will exposed to the developer upon execution of the software.

[0022]FIG. 3 shows one embodiment of a system for implementing the instrumentation analysis stage. Source code 300 is provided to a compiler 302. The compiler 302 has been modified to expose internal data structures so that once a syntax tree has been assembled for the source code 300, a instrumentation analysis tool 304 can analyze the syntax tree to determine which code segments are likely to produce runtime defects. Once the instrumentation analysis tool 304 determines which segments of code should be instrumented, it also determines what code modifications should be made to properly instrument the code segment. This information is stored in a PI file 306 to be referenced by the instrumentation injection stage.

[0023] The examination method used by the instrumentation analysis tool can be any variety of analysis, but is specific to the type of defects sought to be detected. Some possibilities include data flow analysis, pointer analysis, cross-function analysis, or any other method of analysis likely to reveal defects may be present. The criteria used to detect if a segment of code is instrumented also depends on the type of defect sought. These defects may include but are not limited to memory access violations, uninitialized variable usage, null dereferences, incorrect API usage, memory leaks, etc.

[0024]FIG. 4 shows another embodiment of a system for implementing the instrumentation analysis stage. In this embodiment, the modified compiler 400 exposes the source code to the instrumentation analysis tool 402 by providing parsed code as objects to the instrumentation analysis tool. For instance, the parsed code could be provided in accordance with the Microsoft Component Object Model (“COM”), as described in “Inside OLE, Second Edition,” by Kraig Brockschmidt published in Microsoft Press, Redmond, Wash. (1995) for example. The instrumentation analysis tool 402 invokes a series of defect modules 404. Each defect module may register for “events” that correspond to a specific type of defect the module is responsible for detecting in source code. Thereafter, the defect module may be invoked only for declarations, functions, etc. that may contain such a defect. The defect modules 404 also can interact with a model manager 406 containing abstractions of certain function behaviors, such as function behaviors of various application program interfaces, in order to improve the intraprocedural analysis of the defect modules 404. Both defect modules 404 and function models can be defined by a specific user for customized defect detection. The defect modules 404 report to a defect manager 408 which code segments may cause runtime defects and how to instrument them. The defect manager 408 is responsible for producing a PI file 410 detailing the information conveyed by the defect modules 404. The PI file 410 in this embodiment is implemented in Extensible Mark-up Language (XML), but those skilled in the art will recognize other formats can also be used.

[0025] The following examples show possible defects detected by a instrumentation analysis tool and the modifications recorded in a PI file to instrument a segment of code containing a possible defect.

[0026] An Uninitialized Variable Usage.

[0027] The following segment of code contains a possible error at runtime due to an uninitialized variable usage. Specifically, if foo(TRUE) is called, the address of ‘i’ is passed to ‘bar’ and may or may not be initialized. This could result in returning an uninitialized variable value. If foo(FALSE) is called, it can statically be seen that a valid value is returned by ‘foo’. void bar(int *p); int foo(bool b) { int i; if (b)   bar(&i); else   i=1; return i; }

[0028] The instrumentation analysis tool determines that ‘i’ may or may not be initialized if foo(TRUE) is called. Therefore, it can add a shadow variable, ‘i_shadow’, that tracks the value of variable ‘i’ and checks if it is valid before it is used. The instrumentation can be noted in the PI file as:

[0029] Add(“int i_shadow=i”, file.cpp(line 5, offset 0));

[0030] Add(“if (i==i_shadow) reportError( );”, file.cpp(line 9, offset 0));

[0031] The directives indicate that the phrase “int i_shadow=i” should be added to the file named ‘file.cpp’ at line 5, offset 0. Likewise, the phrase “if (i==i_shadow) reportError( );” should be added to the file named ‘file.cpp’ at line 9, offset 0.

[0032] A Null Dereference

[0033] The following segment of code contains a possible defect at runtime due to a null dereference. A dereference is an attempt to access what a particular pointer is referring to. In the function ‘bar’, ‘ptr’ is set to null and then passed to the function ‘foo’, which may or may not return ‘ptr’ set to a valid pointer. Therefore, the dereference in the line “printf(“character is %c\n”, *ptr);” may cause a defect at runtime if ‘ptr’ is set to null. void foo(char **ptr); void bar( ) { char *ptr = NULL; foo(&ptr); printf(“character is %c\n”, *ptr); }

[0034] The instrumentation analysis tool determines that ‘ptr’ may or may not be set to null after ‘foo’ is called. Therefore, it can track the value of ‘ptr’ by adding the following directive to the PI file:

[0035] Add(“if (ptr==NULL) ReportDefect( );”, file.cpp(line 6, offset 0))

[0036] The directive indicates that the phrase “if (ptr==NULL) ReportDefect( );” should be added to the file named ‘file.cpp’ at line 6, offset 0.

[0037] Incorrect API Usage

[0038] For purposes of example, assume that the function ‘foo’ in the following code segment is an application program interface (API) that expects the variable ‘flag’ to have a value of five or greater. If the input to ‘scanf’ was an integer less than five, an unexpected value will be passed to the API ‘foo’, possibly causing runtime defects. void foo(int flag); void bar( ) { int flag; scanf(“%d”, &flag); foo(flag); }

[0039] Therefore, the instrumentation tool adds the following directive to the PI file so that it can detect if the value of ‘flag’ is less than five:

[0040] Add(“if (flag <5) ReportDefect( );”, file.cpp(line 6, offset 0))

[0041] The directive adds the line “if (flag <5) ReportDefect( );” to be added to line 6, offset 0 of the file ‘file.cpp’.

[0042] Memory Leaks

[0043] In the following segment of code, the author has requested memory be allocated to the pointer ‘ptr’ using the malloc command. If memory allocated in this fashion is not subsequently released using the free command, the memory cannot be used by the program for other tasks and therefore loses a portion of the total amount of memory available to the program. This is referred to as a memory leak. Note that if the two predicates based on ‘fool’ and ‘foo2’ both fail, the memory allocated to ‘ptr’ may not be reclaimed and therefore leaked. bool foo1( ); bool foo2( ); void foo3(char*); void bar( ) { char *ptr = (char *)malloc(10); if (foo1( )) { foo3(ptr); free(ptr); } else if (foo2( )) { foo3(ptr); free(ptr); } }

[0044] Therefore, the instrumentation tool adds the following directives to the PI file to ensure the allocated memory has been reclaimed.

[0045] Add(“bool bReleasedPtr=false;”, file.cpp(line 7, offset 0))

[0046] Add(“bReleasedPtr=true;”, file.cpp(line 10, offset 0))

[0047] Add(“bReleasedPtr=true;”, file.cpp(line 15, offset 0))

[0048] Add(“if (!bReleasedPtr) ReportDefect( );”, file.cpp(line 17, offset 0))

[0049] The first directive sets a Boolean variable ‘bReleasedPtr’ to false. The next two directives are placed such that if the memory is reclaimed, the variable ‘bReleasedPtr’ is set to true. The last directive checks for a true value in the variable ‘bReleasedPtr’, indicating the memory has been reclaimed.

Instrumentation Injection Stage

[0050] The instrumentation injection stage is responsible for making the modifications directed by the PI file and producing an instrumented executable. FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of the instrumentation injection stage. Source code and the PI file produced during the instrumentation analysis stage are provided to a preprocessor in act 500. The preprocessor adds, removes, or modifies source code according to the directives in the PI file to instrument the source code in act 502. The instrumented source code is then lexically analyzed to create a token stream from the instrumented source code, which is in turn syntactically analyzed to construct an instrumented syntax tree in act 504. The instrumented syntax tree can be converted into an intermediate representation and optimized at this point, and then converted into executable object code. Alternatively, the instrumented syntax tree can be directly converted into executable object code as shown in act 506.

[0051] An example of a preprocessor 604 used in the instrumentation injection stage is shown in FIG. 6. The preprocessor 604 is provided with source code 600 and PI file 602. The preprocessor will read the directives from the PI file and add, delete, or modify the source code 600 per the directives and then provide the instrumented source code to a parser 606. For example, referring to back to the examples from the instrumentation analysis stage, the modifications and resulting code produced by the preprocessor are shown below.

[0052] Uninitialized Variable

[0053] The following directives were added to the PI file during the instrumentation analysis stage:

[0054] Add(“int i_shadow=i”, file.cpp(line 5, offset 0));

[0055] Add(“if (i==i_shadow) reportError( );”, file.cpp(line 9, offset 0));

[0056] The preprocessor therefore adds the lines of code indicated to lines 5 and 9 at offset 0 of file.cpp. The original code and instrumented code are set out below. Original Code Line # Instrumented Code void bar(int *p); Line 1 Void bar(int *p); int foo (bool b) . int foo (bool b) { . { int i; . int i; if (b) Line 5 int i_shadow=i;   bar(&i); . if (b) else .   bar(&i);   i=1; . else return i; .   i=1; } Line 10 if (i==i_shadow) report error( ); . return i; . }

[0057] A Null Dereference

[0058] The following directive was added to the PI file during the instrumentation analysis stage:

[0059] Add(“if (ptr==NULL) ReportDefect( );”, file.cpp(line 6, offset 0))

[0060] The preprocessor therefore adds the line of code indicated to line 6 at offset 0 of file.cpp. The original code and instrumented code are set out below. Original Code Line # Instrumented Code void foo(char **ptr); Line 1 void foo(char **ptr); void bar( ) . void bar( ) { . { char *ptr = NULL; . char *ptr = NULL; foo(&ptr); Line 5 foo(&ptr); printf(“character is %c\n”, . if (ptr==NULL) reportDefect( ); *ptr); } . printf(“character is %c\n”, *ptr); . }

[0061] Incorrect API Usage

[0062] The following directive was added to the PI file during the instrumentation analysis stage:

[0063] Add(“if (flag<5) ReportDefect( );”, file.cpp(line 6, offset 0))

[0064] The preprocessor therefore adds the line of code indicated to line 6 at offset 0 of file.cpp. The original code and instrumented code are set out below. Original Code Line # Instrumented Code void foo(int flag); Line 1 void foo(int flag); void bar( ) . void bar( ) { . { int flag; . int flag; scanf(“%d”, &flag); Line 5 scanf(“%d”, &flag); foo(flag); . if (flag<5) reportDefect( ); } . foo(flag); . }

[0065] Memory Leaks

[0066] The following directives were added to the PI file during the instrumentation analysis stage:

[0067] Add(“bool bReleasedPtr=false;”, file.cpp(line 8, offset 0))

[0068] Add(“bReleasedPtr=true;”, file.cpp(line 12, offset 0))

[0069] Add(“bReleasedPtr=true;”, file.cpp(line 17, offset 0))

[0070] Add(“if (!bReleasedPtr) ReportDefect( );”, file.cpp(line 19, offset 0))

[0071] The preprocessor therefore adds the lines of code indicated to lines 8, 12, 17, and 19 at offset 0 of file.cpp. The original code and instrumented code are set out below. Original Code Line # Instrumented Code bool foo1( ); Line 1 bool foo1( ); bool foo2( ); . bool foo2( ); void foo3(char*); . void foo3(char*); void bar( ) . void bar( ) { Line 5 { char *ptr = . char *ptr = (char *)malloc(10); (char *)malloc(10); if (foo1( )) . bool bReleasedPtr = false; { . if (foo1( )) foo3(ptr); . { free(ptr); Line 10   foo3(ptr); } . bReleasedPtr = true; else if (foo2( )) . free(ptr); { . } foo3(ptr); . else if (foo2( )) free(ptr); Line 15 { } . foo3(ptr); } . bReleasedPtr = true; . free(ptr); . } Line 20 if (!bReleasedPtr) ReportDefect( ); . }

[0072]FIG. 7 shows one embodiment of a system for implementing the instrumentation injection stage. Source code 700 and PI file 702 are provided to a compiler 704. The compiler 704 uses the directives in the PI file 702 to instrument the source code 700. The instrumented source code is then compiled into instrumented object code 706.

Exemplary Operating Environment

[0073]FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a computer system that serves as an operating environment for preprocessor-based instrumentation of software. The computer system includes a personal computer 820, including a processing unit 821, a system memory 822, and a system bus 823 that interconnects various system components including the system memory to the processing unit 821. The system bus may comprise any of several types of bus structures including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, and a local bus using a bus architecture such as PCI, VESA, Microchannel (MCA), ISA and EISA, to name a few. The system memory includes read only memory (ROM) 824 and random access memory (RAM) 825. A basic input/output system 826 (BIOS), containing the basic routines that help to transfer information between elements within the personal computer 820, such as during start-up, is stored in ROM 824. The personal computer 820 further includes a hard disk drive 827, a magnetic disk drive 828, e.g., to read from or write to a removable disk 829, and an optical disk drive 830, e.g., for reading a CD-ROM disk 831 or to read from or write to other optical media. The hard disk drive 827, magnetic disk drive 828, and optical disk drive 830 are connected to the system bus 823 by a hard disk drive interface 1032, a magnetic disk drive interface 833, and an optical drive interface 834, respectively. The drives and their associated computer-readable media provide nonvolatile storage of data, data structures, computer-executable instructions (program code such as dynamic link libraries, and executable files), etc. for the personal computer 820. Although the description of computer-readable media above refers to a hard disk, a removable magnetic disk and a CD, it can also include other types of media that are readable by a computer, such as magnetic cassettes, flash memory cards, digital video disks, Bernoulli cartridges, and the like.

[0074] A number of program modules may be stored in the drives and RAM 825, including an operating system 835, one or more application programs 836, other program modules 837, and program data 838. A user may enter commands and information into the personal computer 820 through a keyboard 840 and pointing device, such as a mouse 842. Other input devices (not shown) may include a microphone, joystick, game pad, satellite dish, scanner, or the like. These and other input devices are often connected to the processing unit 821 through a serial port interface 849 that is coupled to the system bus, but may be connected by other interfaces, such as a parallel port, game port or a universal serial bus (USB). A monitor 847 or other type of display device is also connected to the system bus 823 via an interface, such as a display controller or video adapter 848. In addition to the monitor, personal computers typically include other peripheral output devices (not shown), such as speakers and printers.

[0075] The personal computer 820 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as a remote computer 849. The remote computer 849 may be a server, a router, a peer device or other common network node, and typically includes many or all of the elements described relative to the personal computer 820, although only a memory storage device 850 has been illustrated in FIG. 8. The logical connections depicted in FIG. 8 include a local area network (LAN) 851 and a wide area network (WAN) 852. Such networking environments are commonplace in offices, enterprise-wide computer networks, intranets and the Internet.

[0076] When used in a LAN networking environment, the personal computer 820 is connected to the local network 851 through a network interface or adapter 853. When used in a WAN networking environment, the personal computer 820 typically includes a modem 854 or other means for establishing communications over the wide area network 852, such as the Internet. The modem 854, which may be internal or external, is connected to the system bus 823 via the serial port interface 846. In a networked environment, program modules depicted relative to the personal computer 820, or portions thereof, may be stored in the remote memory storage device. The network connections shown are merely examples and other means of establishing a communications link between the computers may be used.

[0077] Having illustrated and described the principles of the illustrated embodiments, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the embodiments can be modified in arrangement and detail without departing from such principles.

[0078] For example, the embodiment illustrated herein use a preprocessor to implement the directives stored in the PI file. However, in an alternative embodiment the directives stored in the PI file may be implemented in the source code by a separate apparatus or by another apparatus already present such as the parser. Another embodiment may include an apparatus implementing the directives of the PI file at some other stage of compilation other than during preprocessing, such as during the lexical analysis or syntactic analysis.

[0079] In view of the many possible embodiments, it will be recognized that the illustrated embodiments include only examples and should not be taken as a limitation on the scope of the invention. Rather, the invention is defined by the following claims. I therefore claim as the invention all such embodiments that come within the scope of these claims. 

I claim:
 1. A method for instrumenting software, the method comprising: prior to compiling source code, analyzing a syntax tree representing the source code to identify at least one code segment in the source code to instrument; recording data identifying the code segment and how to instrument the code segment in a file; and compiling the source code, including instrumenting the code segment in the source code according to the data in the file.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the code segment is instrumented during preprocessing.
 3. The method of claim 1 wherein compiling the source code comprises constructing an instrumented syntax tree from the source code and wherein the code segment is instrumented prior to constructing the instrumented syntax tree.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein data identifying the code segment and how to instrument the code segment comprises data identifying a file and line number and an instruction on how to instrument the source code.
 5. The method of claim 4 wherein an instruction on how to instrument the source code comprises an add, remove, or replace instruction.
 6. The method of claim 5 wherein an instruction on how to instrument the source code further comprises additional source code.
 7. A computer-readable medium containing computer-executable instructions for performing the method of claim
 1. 8. A method for instrumentation analysis of software comprising: creating a syntax tree based on source code; analyzing the syntax tree to identify at least one code segment to instrument; and saving data identifying the code segment and how to instrument the code segment in a file.
 9. The method of claim 8 further comprising compiling the source code, including instrumenting the code segment in the source code according to the data in the file.
 10. The method of claim 8 wherein data identifying the code segment and how to instrument the code segment comprises data identifying a file and line number and an instruction on how to instrument the source code.
 11. The method of claim 10 wherein an instruction on how to instrument the source code comprises an add, remove, or replace instruction.
 12. The method of claim 11 wherein an instruction on how to instrument the source code further comprises additional source code.
 13. A method for instrumenting software comprising: analyzing a file containing at least one directive derived from identifying at least one code segment of source code to instrument; and instrumenting the code segment based on the directive.
 14. The method of claim 13 wherein the code segment is instrumented during preprocessing.
 15. The method of claim 13 further comprising compiling the source code, wherein compiling the source code comprises constructing a syntax tree from the source code and instrumenting the code segment prior to constructing the syntax tree.
 16. The method of claim 13 wherein a directive comprises additional source code, data identifying a line number in a source code file, and an instruction to add the source code to the file at the line number.
 17. The method of claim 13 wherein a directive comprises additional source code, data identifying a line number in a source code file, and an instruction to replace the source code at the line number in the file with the additional source code.
 18. The method of claim 13 wherein a directive comprises data identifying a line number in a source code file, and an instruction to remove the source code at the line number in the file.
 19. A system for instrumenting software, the system comprising: a parser that exposes source code; an instrumentation analysis tool that analyzes the exposed source code; and a compiler that instruments the source code based on the analysis of the exposed source code.
 20. The system of claim 19 further comprising at least one defect module that determines whether a segment of the source code could cause runtime defects and how to instrument the code segment.
 21. The system of claim 20 further comprising a defect manager that records data provided by the defect module in a file.
 22. The system of claim 19 wherein the parser exposes the source code by exposing at least one segment of the source code as an object.
 23. The system of claim 19 wherein the compiler comprises a preprocessor responsible for instrumenting the source code based on the analysis of the exposed source code.
 24. The system of claim 19 wherein the instrumentation analysis tool creates a file containing at least one directive as a result of analyzing the exposed source code.
 25. The system of claim 24 wherein the compiler instruments the source code based on the file. 